SETUP INFORMATION The Silicon Photomultiplier (SiPM) is operated using a few Ortec Nuclear Instrument Modules in room B309. Specifically, The model 113 preamplifier, the 570 amplifier, and the 927 Aspec MCA that has a USB port in the back of it for data collection. There are 3 SMA ports that are available to use in the front of the box (Figure 1). Currently the third SMA port is not being used but can be in the future and is okay to be left alone. SMA port 1 is used to apply bias to the SiPM. This is to be negatively biased only. The power supply used is a BK Precision 9110. This was specifically used because it allows control of how much current the SiPM will get. In the event the cover of the box is removed, the exposed SiPM won’t be fried. The second and third SMA ports are used for signal out of the SiPM. Specifically, it is wired to read signal out of SMA port 2.

Using an antenna to generate whistler waves in a plasma using a helium source and a magnetic field probe to measure perturbations in the magnetic field, a biased disc was placed behind the wave generator to create ducting. Ducted waves were seen to propagate towards density minimum when in a region of high magnetic field, and then along a density maximum when in a region of lower magnetic field. A simulation was created using theory, which was found not to agree with measured results.

HISTORY OF PHOTONICS RELEVANT TO CMOS INTEGRATED CIRCUITS In 1909, Arnold Sommerfeld published his proposed analytical proof of surface polarization waves [3] marking in our history of Photonics the cornerstone of the all nanophotonics is motivated. Sixty years following Sommerfeld’s publication, Chinese physicist Charles Kao published a solution for guiding Sommerfeld’s surface excitations using optical fiber [4] which in 2009 he would also receive a Nobel Prize. Today nanophotonic research is being conducted by many countries for many applications, yet their approach is surprising similar. The majority of resources and funding for nanophotonics is the development of better materials. This point will be further evident in following sections, but for now it should be mentioned that of those resources only a marginal portion is allocated in the direction of CMOS integration. Initially, this discovery was quiet shocking for two big reasons. First of all, in recent years Moore’s law’s famous exponential curve of computing performance and affordability over time has become less exponentially improving and we know one major cause of the bottleneck occurring in integrated circuits is interconnects. Illustrated in figure 1 is a comparison of the performance capability of optical fibers vs coaxial cables. Also in figure 1 is a relation of current nanophotonic waveguide capability compared to optical fiber which has strong implications for what is possible on chips and the potential need for an enhancing technology. Secondly, the CMOS business has been so profitable and so heavily investing in machinery that it seems logical to continue investing as a lot of the infrastructure exists. The answer to the initial shock is illustrated in figures 2. CMOS compatible nanophotonics occupies an extremely narrow space on a wide spectrum of possible use cases and therefore to expect so much of the resources to be allocated so narrowly this early in such a young immature science could greatly delay the achievable possibilities. The following sections, however, will discuss the results of the resources that were allocated for CMOS integrated nanophotonics and the modules that are in development to address Moore’s law.

In 1909, Arnold Sommerfeld published his proposed analytical proof of surface polarization waves [11] marking in our history of Photonics the cornerstone of the all nanophotonics is motivated. Sixty years following Sommerfeld’s publication, Chinese physicist Charles Kao published a solution for guiding Sommerfeld’s surface excitations using optical fiber [12] which in 2009 he would also receive a Nobel Prize. Today nanophotonic research is being conducted by many countries for many applications, yet their approach is surprising similar. The majority of resources and funding for nanophotonics is the development of better materials. This point will be further evident in following sections, but for now it should be mentioned that of those resources only a marginal portion is allocated in the direction of CMOS integration. Initially, this discovery was quiet shocking for two big reasons. First of all, in recent years Moore’s law’s famous exponential curve of computing performance and affordability over time has become less exponentially improving and we know one major cause of the bottleneck occurring in integrated circuits is interconnects. Illustrated in figure 1 is a comparison of the performance capability of optical fibers vs coaxial cables. In figure 2 is a relation of current nanophotonic waveguide capability compared to optical fiber which has strong implications for what is possible on chips and the potential need for an enhancing technology. Secondly, the CMOS business has been so profitable and so heavily investing in machinery that it seems logical to continue investing as a lot of the infrastructure exists. The answer to my initial shock is illustrated in figures 3. CMOS compatible nanophotonics occupies an extremely narrow space on a wide spectrum of possible use cases and therefore to expect so much of the resources to be allocated so narrowly this early in such a young immature science could greatly delay the achievable possibilities. The following sections, however, will discuss the results of the resources that were allocated for CMOS integrated nanophotonics and the modules that are in development to address Moore’s law.

This paper describes the methods to calbrate LRO's Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment. Like many radiometers, Diviner is sensitive to instrument temperature changes along the orbit of LRO. Regularly executed calibration blocks include instrument pointings to space and towards internal blackbodies at a known temperature. Data from these blocks serve to determine current offsets and current DN to radiance conversion value. A ground calibration campaign served to determine conversion tables over temperature.

a) Overlap integral given by \[ \eta=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \Psi_{m^{'}} ^{output} \Psi_{m}^{input} dx\] The paper by tong et al, explains that they adjusted the overlap until the output is maximized. I think that for that occur then say the input was a gaussian E = E(0)eax2 where E(0) would be a central maximum, then overlap adjusted until the output was E(0), making the overlap integral just integrating a gaussian.
b) Using the mode solver for this part. I wanted to see how modes would look after LP01, not single moded. So I went back to the paper and looked at the equation for the diameters that allow for single mode operation, $D< \frac{2.4 \lambda}{\pi \sqrt{n_0^2-n_1^2}}$, where n1 is 1 for air, and n0 is the index of refraction for the medium in use. From the tong paper, the second page of the paper, or pg.817 of the nature journal it was published in, index of refraction for Silica is said to be n0 = 1.46. This gives NA = 1.063, using λ = 633nm, the max diameter is then given to be 454.6 nm for single mode operation. So I will put diameters larger then this for non single modes. Using 600 nm for the diameter. The image generated looks just like two very sharp gaussians
c) I believe this is due to when the diameter of the wire is decreased below the wavelength its supposed to be guiding, more of the light is guiding outside the wire as a surface wave. So for 1550 nm , looking at the graph for loss, starting at wire diameters of 1200 nm we are already operating below the wavelength we want to guide so as the diameter decreases , more light is outside the wire leading to more loss. Compared to the 633 nm wavelength, you can see the increase in loss occurs when operating below 633 nm diameter wire but we are lower loss from 1200 nm until we get to 633 nm
d) To go along with this, the loss mechanism is from surface contamination. The silica wires are’t perfectly uniform. By virtue of that, when light is guided by surface waves it is more susceptible to the surface contaminations.